The Law of the Sea Treaty Rises Again

So, the New York Times has an interesting story today about the rise from the depths once again of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Now, you could have won all the money in my pocket betting me that the United States had signed this thing years ago, the oceans having been rather important to us throughout our history of eating fried clams at the beach. Aha, though, I had reckoned without the U.N.-Is-Eating-Our-Brains crowd....

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

"Whatever arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no longer exist and truly cannot even be taken with a straight face," Mrs. Clinton said, noting that some critics still seem to believe that because the treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, "the black helicopters are on their way."

I can't say I'm happy listening to a Democratic secretary-of-state making the case for passing a treaty based on the fact that it will open up more areas for offshore oil and gas drilling, and based on the fact that the global climate change for which all the previous oil and gas drilling is responsible has now progressed to the point where some of the Arctic isn't frozen any more, so we can start drilling and digging there. However, she is correct that opposition to the treaty ought to be based on something substantial, and not the notion that it is yet another gateway — AGENDA 21! — to one-world dictatorship. Some members of the anti-black helicopter caucus took offense:

Senator James Risch of Idaho said it would oblige the United States to adhere to international agreements to stem greenhouse gas emissions. "That's got Kyoto written all over it," he said, referring to the climate change treaty rejected by the United States. Mr. Risch seemed particularly rankled by Mrs. Clinton's contention that the treaty's opponents were driven by "ideology and mythology," not facts. "I hope you weren't scoffing at us," he said. "I'm one of those that fall into that category."

Well, Senator Jim, I gotta tell you, when you go around saying that biomass is more responsible than climate change is for the wildfires in the west, or that allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases is "another power grab by a federal agency and an erosion of the Constitution of this great country. It would lead to a massive tax on every aspect of American life from the ringing alarm clock in the morning to the last light switch turned off at night and it would be levied by bureaucrats who are not held accountable to the voice of the people, "Well, shoot, it's hard not to hear the rotors spinning.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.